By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Ummmm, yea. Because tailgating is the only instance in which you would ever need to stop short. Do you even have a license yet?
ABS is a proven safety feature and you'd be crazy to avoid it....especially since it has become such an inexpensive option when it's not already standard.
Mackabee
How simple my sweet little '73 Maverick seems to have been compared to now. Granted, you could knock your teeth out on that steering wheel, and it is good that cars are so safety-oriented now, but I think some ideas are better than others, that's all. I think the shoulder strap can decapitate you; that motorized one the Fords had was THE WORST idea they ever had. I think they should go back to the lap belt for the driver, who is, after all, protected further by the steering wheel air bag. That is, IF you don't have a heart attack and die when the thing pops out at you! The shoulder straps should be for the front passenger and the back seat residents. And I think not having ABS is a definite selling point...to me. I asked about it the last time I shopped a car because I always buy used, and I crossed it off the list if it had it. That's my preference until they take away the choice.
BTW I've been driving (legally) for 35 years. (Grew up on a farm, so we had a head start on the city kids.)
This is just another example of blaming the world versus making individuals responsible for themselves. A generation ago kids skated without pads and rode bikes without helmets. When they fell down it hurt and they (hopefully) learned not to do that again. Now they don't learn, they go faster next time. At work errors or s are due to poor design, even though the design/process hasn't changed in decades. This trend adds cost and creates a society of irresponsible people. ABS allows drivers to be less attentive, experienced, and responsible.
With 45 years of driving beginning in the snows uf upstate NY, I'll take ABS, VSC, seatbelts and all the airbags they want to put in the vehicles. I've done a double 360 across 6 (empty) lanes of traffic in front of Giants Stadium in Rutherford as a result of no Traction Control in my 96 Concorde. I'll take the safety features.
Thank you, spidey! I said the same exact thing on another thread, but you put it exactly the way I meant it.
Mack
I agree totally!!!
That's mcmanus' style and God Bless him, but I want all the safety features I can get, as U mentioned...
His style is yesterday, and if he doesn't need all these features then power to him! Conveniences and safety items WILL continue flowing to automobile consumers as time goes on, and so be it!
Peace<-AladdinSane-- :shades:
did you guys see this new article on the toyota blade
Heck, I'm hopeful the Blade makes it to the states UNCHANGED period.
Mackabee
Based on what I saw under the xD hood, there's no room for a 6.
Air bags should be an option. They don't help avoid an or take control from the driver, but can total out a car if they go off unnecessarily. Let the individual consumer decide if they're worth the additional cost.
Was your spin around Giants Stadium due to lack of traction control, or traveling too fast for conditions, or poor tires, or a car with little road feel, or driver error, or etc.? Intentions aside, the result of having ABS, VSC, traction control, etc. is cars going faster, often too fast for conditions. As a cop ever wrote a ticket for lack of traction control? I for one want to maintain a "feel" for the car and the road conditions.
ABS, VSC, etc. do take control from the driver and that's my beef. Yes I know it's old school thinking to make people responsible for themselves or to even allow them to decide for themselves if they'd like to be responsible for themselves. It feels like Orwell's 1984 to me, a book described as a "negative utopia".
I think that's taking it a bit too far. People just like to drive fast whether they have those features or not. I've seen Hyundai Accent and Kia Rios hauling [non-permissible content removed] down the expressway.
Mack
Actually, by definition, ABS allows the driver to maintain control when a non-ABS-equipped car would take that control away by going whichever way the momentum was taking it, not the way you were steering.
i think the number of airbags that deploy unnecessarily and do some actual harm is still miniscule compared to the lives they have saved.
WITH regards to the v-6 blade; who is this going to compete with? the gti manages to be faster or at least as fast as other v-6 family sedans, so why put it in the blade? vw stuck a big v-6 in a rabbit too..but they gave it awd.
i dunno what toyo is trying to do with a v-6 here.
but i'd check out a 2.4 blade with a 5A!
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/08/06/2009-toyota-corolla-details-including-new-eng- ines/
"The 2009 Corolla?" Complete with Photoshopped Yaris photo to add even more doubt to the validity of whatever was printed.
The 2.4L makes more sense than a V6, but unless Toyota changes direction and starts offering aggressive/sporty cars, the Corolla is the last place I'd expect a significant engine upgrade offered in their line up.
If you read the consumer reviews here at Edmunds, you'd stay away from the current Camry (slow acceleration, tranny hesitates, poor braking, medicore fuel economy).
Yeah, I'd stay away from it too!
Mackabee
Mackabee
The Sandman
That award is so obviously sold to the highest bidder it ain't funny.
Any compliants from RAV4 owners that use the 2.4L? Mileage reports from consumers of Camry, xB, and tC owners are spotty here at Edmunds (the reported numbers are all over the map). Maybe that's what happens when the sampling is too small. I'd expect the folks who post feel strongly one way or the other, so it's probably not a valid representation.
The 2.4L in the Camry is a great engine; under old EPA standards it managed up to 34 highway MPG in the current generation, and in Consumer Reports' testing, it, when coupled to the 5A finished second only to the Altima 2.5L/CVT in overall efficiency 4 cylinder A/T fuel economy(25MPG vs. 24).
but they don't have to throw a v-6 in it to make it competative. if they want big displacement, MAYBE the 2.5 6cyl, but even that is pushing it. the 2.4 tuned differenlty seems to be the answer if they want to offer a sportier corolla. But i hope its more than just skin deep; a richer interior and bigger engine alone wont cut it. it needs to have at least SOME kind of slightly tuned supesion.
oh corolla gt-s where art thou?
Styling is subjective or objective I guess. Both are great cars but they appeal to different demographics although they compete with each other. Honda Accord buyers are younger than Toyota Camry buyers. This generation Camry has changed that somewhat. I see more younger drivers buying the new Camry.
Mackabee
Don't forget the RAV4 has it too!
Mackabee
It is too big and it gets crappy gas mileage in the tC and xB. The tC barely got 30 mpg highway even under the lax 2007 standards.
It is too big for a Corolla ECONOMY car. The Corolla needs an engine that can get at least the same mileage and preferrably higher mileage than the old engine since gas is so much more expensive now than when the current Corolla was introduced so many years ago.
It would be ridiculous for them to put a Camry engine in it and then have way lower EPA ratings than the Civic.
Mackabee
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6721267650803524581&total=71&start=0&num- =10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2
Look at gas prices - they have trippled since the current gen Corolla was introduced. That is not a recipe for a larger engine. I would prefer the 1.6 liter - had one in a Corolla and it was plenty peppy.
I'd like to know where you were getting gas for under 90 cents per gallon in 2002 (regular 87 octane in Mass is currently around $2.60 per gallon).
the mazda 3 does well with its big 2.3 litre. I guess that the corolla would have to become fun to drive again though, for people to consider an engine of that caliber under the hood.
i dunno about them using the xd engine though...the corolla will weigh more so acceleration and fuel economy will lag a bit...heck this engine isn't anything to write home about in the xd either.
Mackabee
Cool video! :-)
They could do the Corolla some favors merely by actually giving it a proper handling package for the 'S' (and XRS if offered, which I doubt) trim next time around. The current 'S' is all glue-on plastic crap and fake aluminum trim, on the same garbage tires and squishy suspension all the rest of the Corollas get. While they're at it, give it better steering too. They won't go to electric steering for the next model, will they? I suppose they probably will. :-(
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
read my post again; that was my whole point: the previous poster said that the 2.4 litre engine was being 'reserved' for the xrs; i counteracted by saying that just sticking a big engine in a car hardly makes it sporty. hence why i said there is a big difference between a sporty car and a car with a big engine.
mack, i'm a honda fan, i know about powerful small engines!
if they did, it may be a good thing. look at the electric steering set ups in the si an gti; they offer great feedback and feel loads sportier than some traditional rack and pinion setups.
Mackabee
Mackabee